Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

We keep getting "TV is dead/dying/will live forever" stories on HN.

tl;dr of all of them is essentially: TV, as a non-time-shifted non-live broadcast medium, is dead: Netflix et al, Youtube, Torrent, and at the very least, DVRs, killed it; people watch non-live content how they want, when they want, frequently choosing to just "Netflix binge" it.

TV, as a live broadcast medium (eg, emergency news), will never die in that sense: I can watch Presidential addresses via the White House's Youtube channel via Youtube's Live feature as well as many local OTA broadcast channels.

TV is both dead and will live forever depending on what you call TV.

View on HN

> TV, as a live broadcast medium (eg, emergency news), will never die in that sense: I can watch Presidential addresses via the White House's Youtube channel via Youtube's Live feature as well as many local OTA broadcast channels.

I think that misses the point a little. Live events will always be a thing, and we're seeing a huge push for that on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. But many of these events are not available on those platforms yet, and that's the problem.

TV networks hold onto these events as a reason for people to buy a cable subscription, but I would rather watch it on the Internet, and I'd happily pay a fee for it. That's the missing piece that hasn't been figured out yet.

>will never die in that sense: I can watch Presidential addresses via the White House's Youtube channel via Youtube's Live feature as well as many local OTA broadcast channels.

If "presidential addresses" are what's supposed to keep a medium afloat, it's doomed already.

Millenials don't even watch as much sports as older generations anymore...

They might not watch as much traditional sports. But there is a rapidly rising amount of viewers watching esports and other streaming games. While a game isn't a sport; a sport is a game.

This audience is growing rapidly and is already quite large too.

I wonder if YouTube Live and other similar services could scale up to serve in a time of true crises. Back in 2001 the web's bandwidth limitations were laid bare on 9/11 and that was with static text & pictures. CNN had to go to a "bare bones" text site and even that had trouble.

Things have improved dramatically since then of course but delivering live video to billions of users simultaneously?

They held up fine during the Boston Bombing.

The article doesn't say that; it says TV is at risk because it lacks data about its viewers.

And people say that like it's a bad thing. Cable can tell a lot about it's viewers. So can your TV hardware itself. The issue is how and whether they use that data in a way that is consumer-friendly. I'd say anything that takes the control away from the consumer is bad. I would prefer my curation, aggregation and recommendation tools be isolated and give me control over who knows what about me and exactly how it's used. I have no problem opting in for advertising and marketing from specific companies I support, but unfortunately no one gives me that option. I block ads because I have no control over how the third party ad networks use and distribute my data. I don't use paid services for that same reason.

And the article says as much:

>"Traditional (linear) TV audiences are declining at a significant rate, and they are practically aged out of key demographics. Cable customers are also declining."

Note its qualifying the statement with the word "linear."

So in other words, more and more people are using DVRs and subscription services?

News papers and radio stations still survive in their own niches, TV will be just fine.

You can even claim that the same stuff was available via PPV at exorbitant prices, as in movies not the live stuff. Now it's available for nearly free. Yay capitalism!

Blah, capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com